With the passage of the DAOstitution and the formation of the Proposal Jury as one of the two main DAO institutions, there is now a need to better clarify and delineate its powers and responsibilities through guidelines and regulations that would facilitate integrity and accountability within the DAO. The purpose of this set of rules is to provide clarity in the proposal process, which may have been left broad and flexible in the DAOstitution, as well as structure and organization to the Proposal Jury’s internal activities and operations.
The DAOstitution, like the traditional constitutions and charters of countries around the world, was not designed to be an all-encompassing rule book that would be able to anticipate every scenario and situation. In the case of the Proposal Jury, some aspects of the constitutional rules were left intentionally broad and flexible so that the Jury itself could exercise autonomy in decision-making and rule-making. Moreover, it sought to enable future juries to become more adaptable in terms of performing their powers and functions. As the DAO continues to grow and move forward, the aim is to operationalize this flexibility and allow the Jury to modify certain aspects or matters of the rules through democratic voting mechanisms. Thus, to implement this, there was a need to create a more specific set of internal rules and guidelines (“IRG”) for the Proposal Jury to follow so that it would be able to achieve these goals of autonomy and adaptability. Through this IRG, the DAO will set expectations and standards for how the Proposal Jury will perform its role and meet its responsibilities in supporting the DAO and promoting participation among the token holders. In fact, the proposal to pass the IRG itself is a test of the DAO’s ethos of democratic participation as it seeks to vote and deliberate upon a proposal for a set of rules for a DAO institution specifically created for the same exact purpose. By doing this, the DAO takes a step forward to further decentralization and security for the DAO and its proponents.
- Definitions of Key Terms
- Process of Creation / Composition and Qualification of Proposals
- Special Rules and Circumstances
- Rule Making Process for Internal
- Issuance of Interpretive Guidelines
- Amendment, Revision and Repeal of the Internal Rules and Guidelines (IRG)
Section 1. Definitions. Consistent and complementary to its definition in the DAOstitution, and unless the context indicates otherwise, the terms enumerated below shall have the following definitions:
- Internal Rules or Guidelines shall refer to this set of specific rules and guidelines that aims to provide
- Proposal Jury shall refer to the body responsible for the screening and vetting of proposals submitted by the community under the governance proposal system of the DAOstitution.
- Initial Proposal shall refer to a proposal that is submitted for pre-qualification by the community on Discourse in order to gauge interest by discussion as a metric.
- Pre-Qualification shall be known as the process that is utilized to evaluate proposals for submission onto the Snapshot platform with the result either being accepted or rejected.
- Majority shall refer to the larger number of voters of a minimum voting threshold in order for a vote to come to pass.
- Super Majority shall refer to the larger share of voters of a minimum voting threshold in a 3:1 ratio in order for a proposal to come to pass.
- Amendment is defined as a minor change to a particular clause within the Guidelines and will not require a formal proposal to induce change.
- Revision is defined as a major change to a particular cause within the Guidelines and will require a formal proposal to induce change
- Repeal is defined as the complete removal of a clause or rule within the Guidelines and will require a formal proposal to induce change, along with the same proposal providing an immediate solution to the removal gap in the event it is necessary.
- Discussion shall refer to the introduction of the topic of a potential proposal inside the community before creation. It may be moderated as necessary in order to provide clarity to community members.
- Venue shall refer to the area of discussion which may include Discord, Discourse, or Telegram.
- Conflicts of Interest shall refer to situations in which DAO Body members have a situation in which they are in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity due to incompatibility or other standing issues.
Section 2. Interpretation. A reasonable interpretation shall be given to any of the key terms defined above. In case of doubt, an interpretation consistent with the DAOstitution shall prevail.
Section 1. Proposal Formation. The ideation, creation and drafting of the initial proposal shall be the first stage of the proposal process before it is deemed submitted for pre-qualification.
Section 2. Submission for Pre-Qualification (Official Thread) - A proposal shall be deemed submitted as an Initial Proposal if a thread is created in the DAO Forums by a proponent indicating it to be as the official proposal thread.
The proposal thread shall, at a minimum, have the following information and content:
- Name or names of the proponent-members;
- Sufficient description of the suggested course of action or inaction;
- Proposed budget for proposals that require the use of funds from the treasury;
- Timeline of the implementation of the project
- Be clear and all moments that can be misunderstood should be spelled out in detail
- Such other relevant and pertinent information that will aid the decision of the community as to such a proposal.
Section 3. Pre-Qualification (First Evaluation) - Among others, it should be clear in the Initial Proposal what the community would be voting for consistent with the requirement on what the proposal thread should contain. More significantly, the Proposal Jury should determine (1) whether the initial proposal violates any other provision, rule or guideline of the DAOstitution and (2) whether there has been enough discussion on the proposal to meet the discussion requirement. A majority vote must be reached as to these two main conditions for pre-qualification unless otherwise.
Section 4. Deliberation Process - The Proposal Jury may discuss the proposals directly and publicly in the DAO forums together with other members of the community. However, they shall also have independent working sessions when they have to consider several proposals and discuss them fully before rendering a decision. All of the Proposal Jury should research regarding the proposals in terms of potential violations and discuss their thoughts for the final decision. Final decision should be agreed upon on the internal working group communications and approved by each member of DAO Proposal Jury’s team.
- Approval - if the proposal is approved it may now be passed further in the proposal process for finalization.
- Rejection - if the proposal is rejected, the following rules shall govern depending on the reason for the rejection:
Approval - if, upon the lapse of the extension period, the proposal is deemed to have satisfied the discussion requirement, it may now be passed on for finalization three (3) days after the end of the extension period.
Rejection - If, however, after the lapse of the extension period, the proposal is still deemed to have failed to garner sufficient discussion as to satisfy the discussion requirement, the Proposal Jury may vote to reject the said proposal within three (3) days after the end of the extension period.
Reproposal - A proposal rejected in this manner may be re-proposed after the lapse of one (1) month and the proponent shall be required to link to the official thread of the rejected initial proposal. Upon reproposal, the Jury shall only consider whether the said proposal has now garnered sufficient discussion as to have satisfied the discussion requirement.
i. DAOstitution Violation. 1. A proposal rejected for being violative of the DAOstitution shall expressly identify, explain and state the provision or section of the DAOstitution alleged to be violated. This justification should be set forth in a post in the same thread where the proposal is being discussed for prequalification or a separate dedicated thread, if the situation so warrants by reason of the importance or magnitude of the rejected proposal.
ii. Insufficient Discussion - An Initial Proposal may be rejected if the Jury believes that it was not sufficiently discussed by the community. If, upon evaluation, the proposal is deemed by the Proposal Jury to have failed to meet the discussion requirement, the discussion period for the proposal shall be extended by fourteen (14) days (“extension period”). Thereafter, it will go through the following process:
Section 5. Final Proposal - The initial proposal will be finalized and shall be entered into the Snapshot platform after undergoing final review of the Proposal Jury which shall cover non-substantive or technical matters such as, but not limited to: formatting, file type, or other technical issues.
- Finalization - Once pre-qualified, the proposal will be submitted to a community vote on the Snapshot platform through a referendum which shall run for a period of seven (7) days. From pre-qualification to the submission of the proposal to a vote on the Snapshot platform, the proponents should be in communication with the Proposal Jury for any non-substantive updates to the proposal or any potential action or advice from the DAO Court.
- Submission for Referendum - After the proposal is finalized it can be passed further for the referendum. Provided that, the number of proposals under consideration do not exceed the maximum allowed by the Rule on Simultaneous Proposals.
Section 6. Publication - The publication of the decisions of the Proposal Jury shall be made one (1) day after the referendum ends in the dedicated DAO Forum Proposal section.
Section 7. Execution - Unless otherwise provided by the proposal itself, the execution of proposals should begin a day after it is passed by referendum.
- For proposals that have execution provisions - Time frame and details for execution will be coordinated with the appropriate personnel and working groups.
- For proposals that have no execution provisions - Details and plans for execution shall be formulated by the proponent within a one (1) working day period, right after the completion of the referendum.
All related discussion threads and venues will reflect whether or not it is “Approved,” “Awaiting Execution” or “Executed”.
This section will detail specific circumstances which are not the norm but will be indicative of potential scenarios that may occur during the entirety of the process.
Section 1. Limit on the Number of Proposals - Only three (3) proposals per month shall be considered by the Proposal Jury to ensure that the said proposals may garner the community support necessary to move forward by allowing BREED holders time to vote on each individual proposal. This limit may be subject to change.
Section 2. Rule on Simultaneous Proposals - There will not be more than three (3) Proposals running simultaneously. This ensures that the community would have an option of reading, researching and discussing each of the proposals. This amount may change due to importance, size and complexity of proposals. Simultaneous proposals should be run at the discretion of the Proposal Jury while taking into account participation numbers and community engagement in order to determine if simultaneous proposals will nullify the voting process.
Section 3. Rule on Re-Proposing Rejected Proposals - The possibility to change and re-propose repealed proposals with significant changes in structure or goal of said Proposal. Repealed proposals cannot be considered immediately and should have a 1 month interval between proposing and re-proposing. To qualify, it must link the previous proposal and clarify the changes that said proposal has gone through to be able to have a chance at reconsideration.
Section 4. Rules on Proposals that Require On-Chain Modification or DAOstitution changes - With the inherent possibility of decentralization in the near future, these will only be taken into consideration once a threshold of 40% of the total voting pool participants. Once reached, it must require majority approval of that pool in order to qualify for approval and execution.
Section 5. Rules on Prohibited Proposals - If said Proposal is affected by the clause in the DAOstitution clarifying the specification of prohibited proposals, it cannot in any circumstance negate these rules. However if there is no clause specifying the prohibition, it will be up to the Proposal Jury to issue an interpretative guideline regarding this concern to create a standard for future Jurys moving forward.
This section will detail the creation of internal processes that allow the Proposal Jury to have regulation.
Section 1. Internal Rule Proposal Process
- At any point, there will be scenarios in which other internal regulations will need to be proposed. This will be done internally, with an initial proposal being dignified by a discussion within the Proposal Jury Telegram Group for record.
- Any member of the Proposal Jury is able to propose any form of amendment or revision, provided that they are supported by one other member of the Jury in order to validate their proposed change. Repeals will require a majority vote of the Jury to bring to the proposal stage.
- The Proposal Jury will discuss via a working meeting which will be recorded in order to keep as data for future changes.
- Amendments will only require a majority vote, while revisions and repeals will require unanimous decision to move forward with.
- Said decisions will come into effect once DAO voters are made aware. In the case of amendments and repeals which will require formal proposals from internal, these must pass the standard process of proposals and win on votes in order to qualify. Said vote must meet a minimum 20% threshold of the overall voter pool with a majority for approval in order to qualify.
Section 2. Amendments and revisions (supplemental rules only)
- Amendments are classified as small structural changes, either in correction of particular clauses or clarity within guidelines. These will only require an internal vote within the Proposal Jury with a majority vote to qualify.
- Revisions are classified as large structural changes, either in modification of full sections or articles that would alter the article or section to an extent no longer representative of its previous meaning. These will require an internal unanimous vote before being passed to bear as a formal proposal.
Section 3. Repeal
- Repeals are defined as the removal of entire sections or articles of the Internal Rules or Guidelines due to fundamental issues that either harm or no longer provide benefit to the integrity of the IRG or the Proposal Jury.
- Voting will require a unanimous decision before being passed to bear as a formal proposal.
Section 4. Guidelines on interpretation in case of doubts and conflicts
- The DAOstitution provides the latent definition of what is or is not possible within IRGs. Conflicts or doubts will require the Proposal Jury to review the related article and attempt to understand the definition in relation to the issue at hand.
- Rules that have been more established and already previously set will take priority over newer rules due to the context being already established.
- However, should there be an issue with doubt regarding particular rules, the one with more specific nuance will be considered to have more credibility with respect to the issue as compared to more general ones.
Section 1. The Interpretive Guidelines merely defines or explains the relevant statute and regulations and does not impose any requirements that are not otherwise set forth in the DAOstitution or any internal rule or regulation. When issued, they provide both the voters and the future Proposal Juries more ability to navigate around particular issues that have no real clarity.
1. Process on Issuance
- Interpretative Guidelines will go through a discussion period in which they will outline the need for creation and the benefits it will impose onto those it affects once it is issued.
- Once approved by unanimous consent, the Proposal Jury will then begin the drafting process, the member who suggested it shall be assisted by the rest of the Proposal Jury.
- Once drafted, it shall undergo revision and final review and a unanimous vote will determine whether the said interpretative guideline shall be approved and published.
- An Interpretative Guideline is not binding and does not mandate or require any course of action or inaction. Instead it is issued in order to provide clarity to issues relating to the Proposal Jury or the Governance Proposal System that are complex and/or obscure in nature.
- This means that they are not regulations or rules, and do not have to undergo a formal proposal process if created.
Section 1. Proposal Jury members should uphold their professional standards according to Article 6: Community Standards and Ethics of the DAOstitution.
- Objectivity is expected from members of the Proposal Jury
- Conflicts of Interest are to be addressed and brought to the DAO Court
- Accurate feedback and criticism is to be provided to each Proposal.
- Proposal Jury members are to ensure that correct formats are followed and that English is kept to the standard of communication for Proposals.
- They are expected to check proposals for issues of potential plagiarism.
- If the proposal is deemed to be violative of any provision, rule, or guideline of the DAOstitution, the Proposal Jury shall vote to reject the said proposal without fail.
- Proposal Jury members are expected to act as one unit without deviation in terms of the following guidelines. If this is not able, this is to be flagged internally.